JAMPARAPU JEEVAMMA Vs. SANAPALLI VEERA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.03.2001 in MVOP No.636 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), (for short 'Tribunal') Kadapa, wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition against the first respondent-owner of the vehicle alone.

(2.) The appellants herein filed claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of deceased Balashowry, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2.9.1997. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 6 are the children of the deceased. According to them, on the morning of 2.9.1997 the deceased and others went to Rajupalem in the tractor-trailer belonging to the first respondent for loading bricks and while proceeding to Reddipalli, the deceased and other coolies sat on the top of the load of bricks on the tractor and at about 2.30 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, it over turned near Govindaiah Choultry, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased and while under going treatment at Government Hospital, Badwel, he died. It is further pleaded that the deceased was 36 years and was working as coolie, earning Rs.3000/- per month and all the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased.

(3.) The first respondent-owner of the tractor-trailer remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter before the Tribunal opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation and further contending that the policy was issued in favour of A.C.Suryanarayana Reddy, which was in force from 9.6.1997 to 8.6.1998 and transfer if any of the vehicle in favour of the first respondent was not intimated to the 2nd respondent and so, there is no agreement or privity of contract between the 2nd respondent and first respondent. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle and policy does not cover the risk of any passengers. The deceased was not engaged for loading of bricks and he was only an unauthorized passenger.